On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM, mark harwood <[email protected]> wrote: > I came to the conclusion that the transient meaning of document ids is too > deeply ingrained in Lucene's design to use them to underpin any reliable > linking.
What about if we define an id field (like in solr)? Whatever does the traversal would need to make a Map<id,docID>, but that is still better then then needing to do a query for each link. > While it might work for relatively static indexes, any index with a reasonable > number of updates or deletes will invalidate any stored document references in > ways which are very hard to track. Lucene's compaction shuffles IDs without > taking care to preserve identity, unlike graph DBs like Neo4j (see "recycling > IDs" here: http://goo.gl/5UbJi ) > oh ya -- and it is even more akward since each subreader often reuses the same docId ryan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
